Low light 35mm film

razocaine_07 · Oct 17, 2017

Les Sarile said:
Kodak Ektar 100 is the current color C41 fine grain leader.
In the Kodak Ektar 100 datasheet it states as follows:

Adjustments for Long and Short Exposures
No filter correction or exposure compensation is required for exposures from 1/10,000 second to 1 second. For critical applications with longer exposure times, make tests under our conditions.

This is standard caveat in all the color negative datasheets so you will have to experiment. I have made many exposures from minimum of minutes to several hours long with many different color C41 brands and have not encountered any reciprocity failures. Instead, you may encounter different light sources with various light temperatures that you can easily deal with in post if you are so inclined.

Thanks for the image comparisons, it looks like the 800 portra still has relevantely fine grain despite the higher speed. Its good to know someone who hasn't had any issues with recip. failure despite huge exposures, much longer than I will probably need to achieve.

Ces1um · Oct 17, 2017

Siompa said:
Sure ektar and Portra 160 is great for low grain but it’s no ideal for low light. Portra is also available at 800 and Fuji has a 1600 film as well.
There is also cinestill which is rated at 800 but is 500 iso Kodak Vision.

Fuji 1600 has been discontinued (unfortunately). A real shame because it was a great film.

etn · Oct 17, 2017

RalphLambrecht said:
isn't that theater way around?

The old ambiguity... does "small aperture" mean small f/stop number or small amount of light coming in (i.e. large f/stop number)?
Here I just meant that "fast" (*) lenses (e.g. f/1.4, f/2 etc.) are much more common in 35mm than medium or large format. Apologies for the confusion.

(*) I don't like the term "fast lenses" either... doesn't mean much.

RichardJack · Oct 18, 2017

Why? Save your film for daylight and use a DSLR. I know this is a film forum, but lets face it, what is the real importance of photography? Getting the best image right? I can take hand held photos of constellations in digital, why suffer with film? Use both media. If you must use film, IMO Portra 800 is best.Even better in 6x7.

removed account4 · Oct 18, 2017

blackcat has both an exposure guide which might be helpful in your low light situations
and a "steady strap " so you don't need a tripod for lowish light.
they are a great company to buy from !

http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/home.html

Sirius Glass · Oct 18, 2017

RichardJack said:
Why? Save your film for daylight and use a DSLR. I know this is a film forum, but lets face it, what is the real importance of photography? Getting the best image right? I can take hand held photos of constellations in digital, why suffer with film? Use both media. If you must use film, IMO Portra 800 is best.Even better in 6x7.

Because my available light photographs that I have been taking for sixty years will always be better than your digisnapper images. Jus; sayin'

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2017

wy2 said:
Low light and 35mm film do not pair well.
I suggest other (unmentionable) technology may be the answer.

i agree, it might be worth taking a few similar views with a nice digital camera
and comparing similar views with film to see which one works better. ive taken low light
with both media and love low light with the digital camera ( tripod still in use or "the strap" )
the nice thing about using a digital thing is the reciprocity is built in and you can see how it looks
without shooting blind ..

Les Sarile · Oct 20, 2017

razocaine_07 said:
Thanks for the image comparisons, it looks like the 800 portra still has relevantely fine grain despite the higher speed. Its good to know someone who hasn't had any issues with recip. failure despite huge exposures, much longer than I will probably need to achieve.

I have no problems working with any of the Kodak Portra films (160/400/800) and fine grain is definitely a matter of taste and relative comparison.
You did also identify color palette - yet again a matter of taste, so obviously Ektar is more vibrant and contrasty and how you are going to extract the info off the film (color and details) will greatly affect your results. Good luck!

albada · Oct 20, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
Look for newer versions. Also see:

https://www.veronaschools.org/cms/lib02/NJ01001379/Centricity/Domain/53/Jiffy Calc Page 1.pdf
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/20779515
http://www.southbristolviews.com/pics/Cameras/JiffyCalc.pdf
http://kusner.com/download/MVLibrary/JiffyCalculator.pdf

I found a couple of mistakes in the new version of the calculator linked to in the dpreview article. For example, it claims that open shade is EV 11 (it's 12) and that interiors of stores and offices are EV 5.5 (it's 6.5-7). Be careful.

Mark Overton

razocaine_07 · Oct 22, 2017

I know it would be much easier and cheaper to take my DSLR out and go from there, but I want to get the look of the image nailed in-camera. I've tried cropping to the same dimensions as an xpan shot and it never quite works.

Carrying on from the film debate, I did find some Ektar 25 in the back of the fridge. Anyone ever tried this film before?

Les Sarile · Oct 22, 2017

razocaine_07 said:
I did find some Ektar 25 in the back of the fridge. Anyone ever tried this film before?

Wow! I bet it would be finer then even the Konica Impressa (ISO50 color C41) that I have used. Certainly finer grained then the Ektar 125 I used which were from 1992. Given it's age, I would think you might have to shoot it as ISO12 or even lower!

MattKing · Oct 23, 2017

I've read that one of the reasons Ektar 25 was discontinued was that it had poor keeping qualities. So feel free to experiment with it, but don't be surprised if you have problems with colour reproduction.

razocaine_07 · Oct 23, 2017

Yeah I didn't realise how old it was. I'll probably save it for some small project. I've got plenty of it along with some Tudor 100 film from God knows where

Low light 35mm film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency